Re: Williams v. Garland: lawsuit against permanent PP status for nonviolent misdemeanants

2
Ummm....
Possessing firearms requires excellent decision making skills and good judgment, or excellent judgment and good decision making skills. Either way, demonstrations to the contrary suggest that firearms are probably not a good idea, despite their being a long time ago.
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: Williams v. Garland: lawsuit against permanent PP status for nonviolent misdemeanants

3
The two step process that automatically gave deference to state and federal laws is gone in 2A cases. The 3rd Circuit covers PA, NJ and DE, so probably like the 2nd Circuit that got slapped down by SCOTUS in the Bruen decision. I do agree with rolandson that using firearms requires decision making that is not impaired by alcohol or drugs. I expect more cases like this along with the current lifetime firearm ban that applies to all felons, even those convicted of non-violent felonies to get challenged in federal courts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Williams v. Garland: lawsuit against permanent PP status for nonviolent misdemeanants

5
This sounds like another case and I think it was in PA, where a man was convicted of food stamp fraud which was a misdemeanor in PA, he was sentenced to probation. Because he could have been sentenced to over a year in jail, he was blocked by the feds from buying by a gun by the GCA. Parts of the GCA of 1968 should be challenged at SCOTUS, it was passed after the assassinations of the 1960s and doesn't reflect the realities now.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Williams v. Garland: lawsuit against permanent PP status for nonviolent misdemeanants

7
sikacz wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:02 pm Reactionary laws are never going to produced good results. Too much emotion and knee jerk reactions involved.
Indeed. Great example of that is the PATRIOT Act, or as Free Software activist Richard Stallman puts it, the "PAT RIOT" Act. That monstrosity of anti-freedom was passed as a knee-jerk, authoritarian response to September 11, 2001. Democrats and Republicans united in near-unanimous support for that authoritarian Act. I read the entire thing, all 750 pages of it, when it came out, and yes, it was awful.

Of course owning a gun requires good judgmental skills. The same can be said about an automobile or a printing press. Last I checked the stats, automobiles kill more people than guns do, and yet violent felons can buy a car and even get a driver's license to operate it on public roads. A nonviolent misdemeanor should not be a cause to abridge someone's 2A rights--enumerated by the Constitution--any more than it should be for the *privilege* of operating an automobile on public roads.

Same could be said of a printing press or its modern-day digital equivalents, e. g. the Internet. Any Holocaust survivor will quickly confirm the ability of the spoken word, directed to evil, to cause terrible crimes to be committed. That's why we don't like Stormfront, for example, even though even they have the right to spout their terrible filth. Free speech requires a society capable of critical thinking. Without critical thinking, we become North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Red China, etc.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, folks. The Supreme Court got that part right when they said that.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Williams v. Garland: lawsuit against permanent PP status for nonviolent misdemeanants

8
CowboyT wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:41 am
sikacz wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:02 pm Reactionary laws are never going to produced good results. Too much emotion and knee jerk reactions involved.
Great example of that is the PATRIOT Act, or as Free Software activist Richard Stallman puts it, the "PAT RIOT" Act.

Of course owning a gun requires good judgmental skills. The same can be said about an automobile or a printing press. Last I checked the stats, automobiles kill more people than guns do, and yet violent felons can buy a car and even get a driver's license to operate it on public roads. A nonviolent misdemeanor should not be a cause to abridge someone's 2A rights--enumerated by the Constitution--any more than it should be for the *privilege* of operating an automobile on public roads.

Same could be said of a printing press or its modern-day digital equivalents, e. g. the Internet. Any Holocaust survivor will quickly confirm the ability of the spoken word, directed to evil, to cause terrible crimes to be committed. That's why we don't like Stormfront, for example, even though even they have the right to spout their terrible filth. Free speech requires a society capable of critical thinking. Without critical thinking, we become North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Red China, etc.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, folks. The Supreme Court got that part right when they said that.
Agree. We don’t stop felons from buying cars even though that would limit their ability to associate. Likely because we recognize that criminals will steal a car as needed. The same as they can with guns regardless of the regulations. These laws do little to address the underlying causes of violence. Violent people will be violent regardless of laws only the innocent will be defenseless when these laws are enacted.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest